I was merely pointing out that Miller and Dunn J-test was not designed for streaming links but no better test has come along. And there is no consensus on audibility. Some very affordable DACs have exceedingly good measurements, yet the expensive ones score better with reviewers.
As jitter is reduced to ultra low levels, I hear some audible improvements in small details and reduced distortion. In other words, perceptually speaking, some low level distortion seems to be kind of replaced with some low level musical sound details. Starting from already low jitter, further reduced jitter seems to be associated with more distinct reverb tails, less distorted and more accurate, very detailed cymbals, etc. Things of that nature. While noticeable, they are small things and easily obscured by what sounds to me like it might be increasing speaker distortion as volume level is turned up. However, I am listening critically for those little changes because I want to keep making small, incremental improvements to the dacs I am working on. Chipping away at smaller and smaller little remaining defects seems to be what adds to more easily audible bigger differences when taken all together.
In addition, in my particular case I can't help but to hear low level distortion most of the time unless I have too much ear fatigue from excessive volume levels. The curse of training and practice, to some extent, and my natural aversion to distortion also probably a contributing factor.
Of course, I still say if you are ever out here in my neck of the woods, you would be very welcome to drop by and see for yourself. If you can't hear all the little details, well, then I would at least understand why you have your suspicions about FUD, but I kind of expect you might be like most people, if prompted to listen for certain differences on a good enough reproduction system you could probably hear something although perhaps very small and insignificant sounding. If you came back once or twice a month for a year, you might be getting to the point you could just walk in the room and say, "I can tell you are still working on it, it's getting better," or, you might frown and say, "what did you do? Something doesn't seem as good..." And, you would probably be right. In other words, you would probably start becoming somewhat afflicted with the curse of hearing small distortion clearly and effortlessly. I make that sort of prediction based on what other people tend to do, although there is (sometimes a lot of) variation from person to person.
Mark, I am afraid I have completely failed to parse that first paragraph successfully, mainly because a cymbal on a recording bears no resemblance to standing in front of a drum kit. To me it's a false starting point as I use naturally recorded stuff as my reference for fidelity. I just don't think we are approaching this from the same direction and even if we agreed on the music the listening environment is different enough to make comparison impossible*.
I will hopefully be in CA in the spring, but will likely be far too hungover to be able to listen critically when I emerge from the hills (long story, but first joint birthday celebration for 29 years with a friend. It may get messy).
*These days more and more the music matters most. But when I do have my audiophile hat on I'm not interested in decay tails. I want the orchestra to be wide and deep. A good recording will have the tympani somewhere in next doors garden. Speaker dispersion and room treatment will have far more effect on this than the jitter tail. Once I have all that exactly as I want, then the cake may warrant some icing. I am some years away from the cake coming out the oven.
I will hopefully be in CA in the spring, but will likely be far too hungover to be able to listen critically when I emerge from the hills (long story, but first joint birthday celebration for 29 years with a friend. It may get messy).
*These days more and more the music matters most. But when I do have my audiophile hat on I'm not interested in decay tails. I want the orchestra to be wide and deep. A good recording will have the tympani somewhere in next doors garden. Speaker dispersion and room treatment will have far more effect on this than the jitter tail. Once I have all that exactly as I want, then the cake may warrant some icing. I am some years away from the cake coming out the oven.
I'm not sure why you don't understand Mark's point that within the limitations imposed by the recording & playback stages, that there are levels of realism perceivable in reproduced sound - it's when the system ticks enough of our auditory cues that we are more convinced by the illusion - the more of these cues the playback system delivers correctly, the more real the illusion.
And yes, realistic sound stage is one of the outcomes of this correct presentation but we always have to remember, it's an illusion produced by a 2 channel playback & therefore has its limits - expecting it to deliver exactly the love experience is unrealistic
My experience is that when the small things begin to be reproduced believably, the whole presentation changes in its overall realism - there's no longer a feeling of listening to all the notes on the right order & much more is revealed about the performance & interplay of the performers
And yes, realistic sound stage is one of the outcomes of this correct presentation but we always have to remember, it's an illusion produced by a 2 channel playback & therefore has its limits - expecting it to deliver exactly the love experience is unrealistic
My experience is that when the small things begin to be reproduced believably, the whole presentation changes in its overall realism - there's no longer a feeling of listening to all the notes on the right order & much more is revealed about the performance & interplay of the performers
Last edited:
You have made this offer before, I simply hope you can accept that some would be be completely indifferent to the results. Everyone keeps talking about "better" for some the 1% second HD is better.
Last edited:
Auditory perception and autism /spectrum disorders. All 4 of my childen fall into this category. (one is highly autistic). Less intelligent ? Maybe socially , but at 20Khz .. her mind hears that as a tone. Or a whole page of a word finds < 1min. Words just jump out at her. Complex multiplications in seconds - answer just appears in her head.
But she can't talk.
Combo 5 immunizations created this savant.
All the other 3 have savant "peaks" that are out of this world. But are socially averted.
I have all these "peaks" in far lesser degrees. But wasn't ravaged by 21'st century shareholders.
I see this discussion has digressed into a subjective specs vs. perception contest (after denigrating autistics).
I can trace all my children's peaks to my peaks. I can hear the earthworms as well as the voice of somebody I met 20 years ago , and being type 2 manic (with control) , side step the pair of worms breeding and geo-locate the old friend.
My children are a resource , any top dog researcher who condescends on me for my medium level math skill would be surprised when I ask my spectrum 4.0 college math major for the answer(Harvard wanted to give her a freebie , but she failed the "social" (monkey interaction part - their loss.) She might be able to "wipe the floor" with that researcher's present perception/knowledge.
Society (powered by Capitalism - our modern version) , would rather either fully waste high order savants (because of social skills) ,or use the marginal ones to develop the next mind sucking tech novelty .
IOT is good example -IOT is reverse innovation for the public , in return for security and centralization pitfalls (internet was slow today - IOT botnet).
No good will come of it - for us.
Higher ordered "dumb savants" , even as new connections are inhibited in some parts of the brain ,can rewire and expand their peak at will.(retune the brain as the eardrum ages).
Y'all should eat some (magic) mushrooms , who knows how all those new connections would (could) change your perceptions and values. Just a thought ...
OS - the tripper ..he he. Time to let my sub-conscience design some more ppm amps for DIYA.
But she can't talk.
Combo 5 immunizations created this savant.
All the other 3 have savant "peaks" that are out of this world. But are socially averted.
I have all these "peaks" in far lesser degrees. But wasn't ravaged by 21'st century shareholders.
I see this discussion has digressed into a subjective specs vs. perception contest (after denigrating autistics).
I can trace all my children's peaks to my peaks. I can hear the earthworms as well as the voice of somebody I met 20 years ago , and being type 2 manic (with control) , side step the pair of worms breeding and geo-locate the old friend.
My children are a resource , any top dog researcher who condescends on me for my medium level math skill would be surprised when I ask my spectrum 4.0 college math major for the answer(Harvard wanted to give her a freebie , but she failed the "social" (monkey interaction part - their loss.) She might be able to "wipe the floor" with that researcher's present perception/knowledge.
Society (powered by Capitalism - our modern version) , would rather either fully waste high order savants (because of social skills) ,or use the marginal ones to develop the next mind sucking tech novelty .
IOT is good example -IOT is reverse innovation for the public , in return for security and centralization pitfalls (internet was slow today - IOT botnet).
No good will come of it - for us.
Higher ordered "dumb savants" , even as new connections are inhibited in some parts of the brain ,can rewire and expand their peak at will.(retune the brain as the eardrum ages).
Y'all should eat some (magic) mushrooms , who knows how all those new connections would (could) change your perceptions and values. Just a thought ...
OS - the tripper ..he he. Time to let my sub-conscience design some more ppm amps for DIYA.
But there's a large gap between being indifferent about improvements you can hear and calling something FUD. Not saying you are claiming FUD just pointing out the distinction
And Mark is chasing stuff well below the noise and distortion floor of most commonly used microphones, not to mention several % THD on the speakers
Agree, but again, Mark listens extreme nearfield on NS-10s. From what he writes listening to his system appears to be closer to headphones than a normal domestic experience, which is not what floats my boat. The lack of an accurate soundfield is the thing that I find most limiting about 2 channel audio, so my interests are in trying to squeeze the most out of that. It would be so boring if we all had identical goals in our optimization strategies. I also like old mono recordings with all their fidelity issues.
Actually, a cymbal on a recording can sound very close to real cymbal. And in fact, I happen to have a couple of cymbals and a hi-hat withing a few feet of the speakers so you can compare directly. You would be surprised how close it can sound, probably far closer than you have ever heard from another reproduction system.
When you are out here in the spring, I am not far from Pass Labs. So, if you mean you will be out in those same hills (or close enough) then by all means it would be great to have you visit. If you want we could go visit Richard Marsh too (assuming he is in town). One gets a very different impression of people online than in person, and I think you would find the experience very interesting and enjoyable.
Also, no need for an audiophile hat here. Audio engineer hat should work fine.
Last edited:
I simply call out the meaning of "improvement" in some peoples minds your idea of improvement could be someones idea of detriment.
To me horrifying and unlistenable. I was at Yamaha's listening room in Japan to reach this conclusion.
Quick google suggests that a crash cymbal peaks at over 110dB at 1m. I doubt you can reproduce that even if you wanted to (and I know you listen quietly). A real drumkit is LOUD. most domestic replay is not. It doesn't make sense to me to use a cymbal as a figure of merit towards the music I care about the fidelity of.
Very true for some types of critical listening. When listening for pleasure I sit on a couch partway across the room. There is another type of listening to mixes which involves going down the hall, then around a corner into a room with the door still open. Lots of ways to listen.
I can play it soft, trust me. I can get all kinds of sounds out of it. It can be a beautiful sound.
No point in trying to imagine it if you are having trouble doing so. When I show you then you will say, "Oh, you meant that. It sounds good."
Last edited:
You are taking a horribly narrow definition of an entire field (in fact the carp that isn't IOT ) to make your example. There is good stuff, but it's not the pants home automation that I think you allude to 🙂
I'll likely be 100 miles south, but as I've done Guerneville to LA in one hit it's feasible.
As the time gets closer, let's see if we can make something work out. I think it would be good to do, if you're up for it.
Hi turk 182,
Thanks for the readings.
By contrast, as described above, there is clear evidence for relatively low IQ, on average, among individuals with autism, at least as measured by most standardized tests.
How can this paradox of low IQ, but positive genetic correlations of autism risk with intelligence, be resolved? None of the papers on genetic correlations of autism with intelligence discuss possible explanations,
================================
I have a feeling that those authors/researchers are looking too far, may be in the wrong places.
Argument stating that autistic person has many similarities with high intelligent persons (alleles, brain size, etc) has no meaning without knowing the intelligence of his parents. If his parent is highly intelligent, it is perfectly normal if the autistic kid has those similarities.
1. There are more woman than man in this world (A fact), anyhow
2. There are more autistic man than woman in this world (My observation)
3. A man got his X chromosome from his mother (A fact)
4. Autism is related with disorder in X gens (well accepted study)
5. Intelligence is related with X gens (well accepted study). Study/surveys show that most men inherit their intelligence from their mother not father. But i have a feeling this is not the whole story...
I observe some males do inherited their high intelligence from their fathers not mothers. What if the X related gens from a mother dictates a low intelligence but Y gens from a high intelligence father also play a role? Will the high intelligence 'gens' from the father be 'disactivated'? In what way?
Many autistic males have lowly intelligent mother bur surprisingly have very high intelligence father. Should i be surprised if the autistic kid have similarity with his father?
Thanks for the readings.
================================
By contrast, as described above, there is clear evidence for relatively low IQ, on average, among individuals with autism, at least as measured by most standardized tests.
How can this paradox of low IQ, but positive genetic correlations of autism risk with intelligence, be resolved? None of the papers on genetic correlations of autism with intelligence discuss possible explanations,
================================
I have a feeling that those authors/researchers are looking too far, may be in the wrong places.
Argument stating that autistic person has many similarities with high intelligent persons (alleles, brain size, etc) has no meaning without knowing the intelligence of his parents. If his parent is highly intelligent, it is perfectly normal if the autistic kid has those similarities.
1. There are more woman than man in this world (A fact), anyhow
2. There are more autistic man than woman in this world (My observation)
3. A man got his X chromosome from his mother (A fact)
4. Autism is related with disorder in X gens (well accepted study)
5. Intelligence is related with X gens (well accepted study). Study/surveys show that most men inherit their intelligence from their mother not father. But i have a feeling this is not the whole story...
I observe some males do inherited their high intelligence from their fathers not mothers. What if the X related gens from a mother dictates a low intelligence but Y gens from a high intelligence father also play a role? Will the high intelligence 'gens' from the father be 'disactivated'? In what way?
Many autistic males have lowly intelligent mother bur surprisingly have very high intelligence father. Should i be surprised if the autistic kid have similarity with his father?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.